How was Big Local designed to keep communities in control?

The values of the Big Local programme were part of how it differed in design to other funding programmes. These values sought to place and maintain power in communities, creating an environment for residents to lead local decision-making. The values were part of the design from the beginning of the programme, although language evolved over time (James et al., 2014; Local Trust, 2019b). They underpinned all aspects of Local Trust’s delivery of Big Local: how areas were supported, how funding was administered, and the approach to research and communications. Design overlaps with delivery in any socially rooted and ever-evolving programme like Big Local and the values were refined, embodied, and sometimes challenged by the reality of delivering the programme in 150 areas over 15 years. 

This article discusses values that Local Trust practised in its delivery of Big Local, as reflected through staff discussion and reports – not the values of individual Big Local areas. But where possible, we have reflected residents’ experience of the programme’s values.

Local Trust explains the structures and components of Big Local on another page.

At the heart of the programme was the belief that residents are best placed to make decisions about what happens in their areas. Decisions about where Big Local funding was allocated in each area were not taken by Local Trust’s trustees, but by residents of each area. Plans to allocate the funding were made by a group of majority residents (at least 51 per cent) – partnerships – who engaged with the wider community to identify local priorities. This bottom-up approach put residents in control of decision-making and, over time, also supported the confidence and skills of those involved in Big Local (Wilson et al., 2025). 

Local Trust has explored how residents were supported to lead decision-making in another article.

Power cannot be devolved to communities if there are firm rules about what issues funding can be used for, and how the issues are addressed. Non-prescriptive funding means residents allocate funding on their own terms. 

There were a few requirements that Big Local partnerships had to meet: they had to submit a plan to Local Trust and base their plans on wider community needs. But beyond that, partnership members had the freedom to decide what their priorities were and how they would address them (McCabe et al., 2017). This meant partnerships could be responsive to external forces, changing socioeconomic landscapes, and shifting needs over the course of the programme (Ellis Paine et al., 2022). Local Trust encouraged partnerships to develop thematically broad plans to accommodate this.

Along with being resident-led, being non-prescriptive was arguably the most distinguishing value of Big Local, separating it from the Funder Plus model (Cairns et al., 2011), which offers support and flexibility alongside funding within set parameters.

The funding given to Big Local areas could be spent over 10 to 15 years, enabling partnerships to develop skills, build reputation, attract volunteers, and grow networks. The timeframe also allowed residents to take on ambitious projects, take risks, and make mistakes, learn, and recover. Partnerships could do these things without the risk of losing funds or having to abandon a worthwhile project, as they had the time to work through challenges (Local Trust, 2019b). It meant that even Big Local partnerships that went through significant periods of turbulence were often still able to recover and deliver their plans. In that respect, it gave residents the opportunity to do what they had planned to do and do it well.

Enabled by the programme timeframe, Local Trust aimed to adopt a patient and non-judgemental approach to delivery (Local Trust, 2019b). Local Trust did not impose value judgements on how communities chose to use their funding, which ensured decision-making stayed with residents. Patience meant that communities maintained control of their funding when trying different approaches and overcoming challenges. 

Even in instances where relationships broke down within a partnership, money stayed within that community as partnerships were given time to repair and rebuild. In the rare case that it was not possible to rebuild a partnership, Big Local was delivered according to local priorities through an alternative model – ensuring that communities still benefitted from the funding, without a resident-led partnership. The allocated funding could not be taken away from an area, except it could not be spent beyond the final deadline (March 2026).

Having delegated decision-making over use of funds to areas, one of the main roles of Local Trust was to provide flexible and responsive support to Big Local partnerships. This support was designed to maintain community power, by being tailored to the specific needs of areas, therefore supporting the success of Big Local in communities (Wilson et al., 2023). 

An increase in support from Local Trust could help to keep communities in control. For example, as groups took on more complex projects, it was important that they followed legal obligations and protections to ensure that assets (such as community buildings) did not fall out of the hands of communities. Local Trust developed guidance for partnerships to address this. This shows how Local Trust support helped build capacity so that communities could make the most of the opportunities available to them and deliver their plans. 

Local Trust explores how Big Local areas increased community control over physical assets and spaces (including the need for guidance around safeguards in purchasing buildings) in another article.

Local Trust took a values-driven approach to running the Big Local programme from the start. This meant processes around administering funding had to reflect the core values.

Areas were not required to spend a certain amount of money in a year or meet generic milestones (James et al., 2014; McCabe et al., 2018). In terms of monitoring, Local Trust required little in the way of activity or output data, instead providing optional support on measuring impact. 

Local Trust has outlined its approach to evaluation and research in another article.

Bureaucracy was kept to a minimum for residents. Financial reporting was the responsibility of the Locally Trusted Organisation (LTO) and Local Trust staff were responsible for checking whether partnerships were meeting core criteria. Partnership members themselves were only required to do a review of each funding plan, and further funding was not contingent on the content of this.

The resident-led value also meant giving partnerships autonomy over many decisions. Partnerships chose their own LTO: one of the first decisions they made as a resident-led group. Over the lifetime of the Big Local programme, some areas decided to change their LTO if their needs changed (Dobson, 2025).

Partnerships also developed their own plans for allocating funding. An external assessor reviewed these plans against criteria set by Local Trust: criteria which included community involvement and benefit. In rare cases, plans were rejected on the grounds that they were not feasible to achieve within the specified timescale and budget. Here, partnerships were assisted to develop a new plan and the overall goal was still supported. 

Some residents found this delegation of responsibility difficult, perhaps because they took their role as funding distributors very seriously. Some also questioned whether there should be more guidance for residents involved (Wilson et al., 2025). Perhaps reflecting this, in 2024, 34 per cent of partnership members responding to a survey said that they wanted more programme guidance from Local Trust (Local Trust, 2024).

A resident-led, non-prescriptive approach could not apply to everything. These values were, at times, difficult to reconcile with the need to follow regulatory frameworks. Local Trust sometimes had to increase its involvement and give direction regarding the payment and management of local workers (for example, on redundancy processes), and LTOs had to follow their own organisational processes for safeguarding, health and safety, and other issues.

As Big Local moved towards its end, Local Trust was keen that all areas spend all the allocated funding to benefit their communities (Wilson et al., 2025). Local Trust increasingly discussed strategies to support areas to spend their full funding allocation by the March 2026 deadline. In many areas, no difference in approach was needed, and areas completed well before the deadline. But in others, Local Trust became more involved in how partnerships operated, while still respecting residents’ overall goals. There were cases where a partnership wished to allocate Big Local funds towards a community building, but had not yet established an incorporated body. Here, Local Trust would honour the overall goal, but would normally require a pre-existing charitable organisation to manage the building (rather than the partnership), because of the amount of time left. 

A minority of areas (around 30 to 40) were given detailed milestones for the final years of Big Local, often to help major capital projects progress effectively and ensure the spending deadline was met. The milestones were specific to an area, developed through working together, rather than being generic across the programme. And in seven areas, there was a move away from the partnership model altogether. 

Local Trust will discuss alternatives to the partnership-led model in Big Local in a forthcoming article.

The value of patience is perhaps best demonstrated when hardest to maintain. Very slow rates of spend were a common issue and many areas took years to establish a plan to spend the Big Local funds (James et al., 2014). As intended, Local Trust waited rather than changing approach, while continuously supporting areas to reach that first milestone of developing a plan. When plans did get underway, there was flexibility around payment schedules. Delays were common: in 2016 to 2018, the majority of areas had some type of delayed or cancelled grant payment (Local Trust, 2019a). 

Less common, but potentially serious, were issues like interpersonal dynamics that risked hampering collective decision-making. Such cases required robust challenge, and some staff felt they could have been firmer earlier on about what was acceptable. 

As the 2026 deadline came closer, it was a question of areas spending the money or losing it altogether. Absolute patience became less suitable. Yet nevertheless, in 2024, 88 per cent of partnership members responding to a survey agreed or strongly agreed that the Big Local programme gave them freedom to do things to a timescale that worked for them.

Knowing what each area required was important for responding to need. Local Trust leadership, including successive chief executives, prioritised in-person visits to areas. This relational approach required capacity, so that staff could build relationships with the areas they worked with. The amount of time needed varied in different areas, at different times.

In general, the support from staff was rated very highly. For example, 96 per cent of partnership members responding to a survey in 2024 rated the support from their area advisor or area co-ordinator (staff working closely with a small number of areas) as very helpful.

The long-term nature of the programme also enabled flexibility, building on learning from previous area-based initiatives (IVAR, 2013). Yet the programme still had to come to an end; it was only long-term in the context of funding schemes. As one staff member noted, some of these communities had existed for hundreds of years, and would continue long after the programme ends. 

This serves as a reminder to remember that the point of view of a funder – and how its approach may or may not differ from other charitable funders – is different to that of a resident. How the values were understood and practised by volunteers was, if not separate, a different angle to how the values were practised by the Local Trust.

The embodiment of these values by Local Trust staff and partner organisations had an important influence on how they were upheld and how they were perceived by areas. Values such as patience, non-judgement, and responsiveness could be upheld through the ways in which staff carried out their work. 

This was also true for Local Trust’s partners and other key stakeholders. Monitoring how values were being upheld by third parties could have been challenging as Local Trust did not directly manage them. However, regular training days, including residentials (sessions with overnight stays), were used to build consistency and clearly communicate values to these groups. 

Bringing more delivery staff in-house created added assurance around how the values were upheld, by enabling direct management. The expansion of Local Trust’s delivery team also enabled staff to better uphold the values of the programme themselves, offering more flexibility.

Upholding the values was an active process, requiring self-reflection by staff. Some staff spoke of previous experience in more prescriptive funding programmes. To stay true to the values of the programme, staff had to challenge their own ideas around success, or the right way to execute a project.

Being flexible and responsive to areas’ needs was not just a value that staff embodied, it was a skill they developed by working on the programme. Rather than assessing plans against a rigid framework, delivery staff had to gather learning and information, and be able to quickly adapt. In that sense, although the values remained consistent, the ways in which they were upheld shifted over time and between areas. 

Across other teams, non-judgement was particularly important. For research, policy, and communications teams, their role was not to impose value judgements on what areas did, but to build a picture of what was happening in areas that reflected the experiences and insights of Big Local residents. Staff also reflected that to advocate for the programme to external stakeholders, it was important to possess strong personal belief in the programme’s values and their transformative potential. 

At the same time, ongoing reflection on the practical challenges and opportunities to embody the values was important throughout. This ensured the set of values stayed live throughout the entirety of the programme.